Re: BUG #15727: PANIC: cannot abort transaction 295144144, it wasalready committed
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #15727: PANIC: cannot abort transaction 295144144, it wasalready committed |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20190406162846.uohf5lcybz4ldrxh@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #15727: PANIC: cannot abort transaction 295144144, it was already committed (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #15727: PANIC: cannot abort transaction 295144144, it wasalready committed
Re: BUG #15727: PANIC: cannot abort transaction 295144144, it wasalready committed |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Hi, On 2019-04-06 12:23:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > It seems that there may be some connection between this problem and > EPQ. I was working on committing Amit's fix for bug #15677, which > demonstrated that EPQ doesn't work for partitioned-table target rels. > It seemed like there really needed to be regression test coverage for > that, so I tried to convert his crasher example into an isolation test. > It does indeed crash without Amit's fix ... but with it, lookee what > I get: > > +error in steps c1 complexpartupdate: ERROR: unexpected table_lock_tuple status: 1 > > That seems fully reproducible in this test. I haven't looked into > exactly what's causing that, but now that we have a reproducible > example, somebody should. > > I'm not quite sure if I should commit this as-is or wait till the > other problem is fixed. A crash is probably worse than a bogus > error, but I don't like committing obviously-wrong "expected" output. > Thoughts? Let me have a look at the testcase - I'd been running Roman's testcase for quite a few hours without being able to reproduce. But your testcase seems to trigger this reliably, so I hope I can make some quick progress. - Andres
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: